JAMAICA THE HON MRS JUSTICE HARRIS JA THE HON MR JUSTICE DUKHARAN JA THE HON MISS JUSTICE PHILLIPS JA BETWEEN GLENFORD ANDERSON APPELLANT

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "JAMAICA THE HON MRS JUSTICE HARRIS JA THE HON MR JUSTICE DUKHARAN JA THE HON MISS JUSTICE PHILLIPS JA BETWEEN GLENFORD ANDERSON APPELLANT"

Transcription

1 [2012] JMCA Civ 43 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 37/2007 BEFORE: THE HON MRS JUSTICE HARRIS JA THE HON MR JUSTICE DUKHARAN JA THE HON MISS JUSTICE PHILLIPS JA BETWEEN GLENFORD ANDERSON APPELLANT AND GEORGE WELCH RESPONDENT Christopher Dunkley and Miss Janene Laing instructed by Phillipson Partners for the appellant Mr Errol Gentles instructed by Gentles and Willis for the respondent 8 November 2011 and 28 September 2012 HARRIS JA [1] This is an appeal from the judgment of Cole-Smith J delivered on 23 January 2007 in favour of the respondent. Damages were awarded as follows: Special Damages Assessed at $243, with interest at 6% per annum from the 16 th January, 1992 to the 23 rd January, General Damages assessed at $1,400, with interest at 6% per annum from 30 th May, 1996 to the 23 rd January, 2007.

2 Cost to the Claimant to be agreed or taxed. [2] On 8 November 2011 this court made the following orders: Appeal is allowed. Judgment of the trial judge is set aside. Cost of the appeal to the appellant to be agreed or taxed. We now furnish the reasons for that decision. [3] The appeal has its origin in a claim in negligence, brought by the respondent for damages for injuries and loss sustained by him, arising from an accident along Olympic Way on 16 January Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the statement of claim reads: 2. The Defendant was at all material times the owner of a Volkswagon [sic] Mini Bus licensed and registered number PP On the 16 th day of January 1992, the plaintiff was walking along the left hand side walk by the main road on Olympic Way facing the South when the Volkswagon [sic] Mini Bus driven by the Defendant mounted the pavement and hit the Plaintiff from behind and ran him over. 4. That the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the Defendant. [4] In his defence, the appellant denied being negligent and stated that the collision was due to the negligence of a third party. [5] The respondent died prior to the trial of the action and an order was made appointing his widow the representative of his estate for the purpose of continuing the action.

3 [6] A police report relating to the accident was tendered and admitted into evidence. The report shows that at about 4:05pm on 16 January 1992 an accident occurred at Olympic Way involving a white Toyota Carina motor car registration number 7454 AI and a Volkswagen minibus bearing registration letters and number PP Radcliffe Brown was the owner of the motor car which was driven by Lilieth Brown, while Glenford Anderson was the owner and driver of the Volkswagen minibus. The summary of the report is as follows: Reports are that V.W. minibus was carrying passengers from Water House to Three Miles travelling southwardly along Olympic Way. On reaching the junction with Hill Avenue, motor car (Toyota) proceeded from same and collided into the left side of the minibus. It got out of control and mounted the left side walk where it hit down male pedestrian George Welsh. [7] On 14 October 1998 a summons was issued for leave to issue and serve third party notice and an order was granted on 18 February 1999 for the service of the notice on Radcliffe and Lilieth Brown. A third party notice filed on 13 April 1999 was subsequently served on Radcliffe Brown. [8] The witness statement of George Welch was admitted into evidence. He stated that on the day of the accident, he was walking on the sidewalk along Olympic Way on the left when a Volkswagen minibus hit him from behind, causing him to fall on the sidewalk. He asserted that at that time, he saw no other vehicle save and except the minibus.

4 [9] The appellant s witness Jestina Cameron stated that she is a higgler and carries out the sale of her wares at Olympic Way and Tower Avenue. On the day of the accident, she saw Mr Welch, who had earlier spoken to her, walking along Olympic Way on the left side of the roadway towards Three Miles. She saw a light blue minibus travelling about 50 miles per hour towards Three Miles on the left side of the road. Thereafter, she saw a white Volkswagen minibus driven, by the appellant, who was previously known to her as Christian, at a fast rate of speed. The Volkswagen attempted to pass the blue minibus which sped up. The Volkswagen seemingly out of control, having swerved to the left, collided with a gate, skidded against the sidewalk with its back wheels lying on the roadway and the front wheels on the sidewalk. The Volkswagen hit the wall, hit Mr Welsh and ran over him. She further asserted that subsequent to the accident, Christian informed her that the matter was before the court and requested that she testify on his behalf by stating that he was not speeding. [10] Mr Stanford Love, testifying on the respondent s behalf, stated that at the time of the accident he was walking along the left side of the road on Olympic Way, when he heard an impact as if a vehicle hit against a wall. He looked around and saw a Volkswagen minibus, which appeared to be skidding towards him. This prompted him to run towards Three Miles. After running approximately one chain, he stopped, looked back and observed Mr Welch being pulled from beneath the front of the minibus. He also stated that he saw no other vehicle there.

5 [11] Mrs Welch gave evidence which essentially showed that Mr Welch was injured in the accident and his health deteriorated. [12] In delivering her reason for judgment, the learned judge said: I accept that there was a car which hit the Defendant s bus and pushed it against the wall, hitting the Claimant. Although there is no evidence of the manner of driving of the Defendant. The police report exhibit 4 speaks to two vehicles involved in the accident. I find on a balance of probabilities that the Defendant is responsible for the injuries of the Claimant although he is not the sole cause of the accident. [13] The appellant placed reliance on four grounds of appeal. The first ground is listed hereunder: Ground (a) The Learned Judge erred in law and in fact in failing to find that the Appellant/Defendant could rely on Court documents sealed and stamped with the seal of the Supreme Court from another Suit No. C.L.A. 111 of 1993 and which was relevant and of probative value to the present case pursuant to section 3.9 (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules [14] It was Mr Dunkley s submission that the learned judge erroneously refused to admit documents filed in the Supreme Court relating to the vehicle which caused the accident by ruling that they were irrelevant. Rule 3.9 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) allows admission of a document under seal into evidence without further proof and the writ of summons in suit number CL

6 1993/A11 Glenford Anderson v Radcliffe and Lilieth Brown which predated the claim at issue is a document sealed in the Supreme Court, he argued. He submitted that before the Supreme Court was an interlocutory judgment in that suit, CL 1993/A11, against the defendants in which the appellant stated that he obtained a monetary settlement and as a matter of record, that evidence having relevance to the material facts in the present case, the learned judge ought to have admitted the documents in evidence. [15] Mr Gentles submitted that the learned judge was correct in denying the appellant the right to tender into evidence records relating to an unconnected suit as those records were irrelevant and although rule 3.9(4) of the CPR permits documents bearing the court s seal to be admitted into evidence without further proof, it does not contemplate records as evidence that a suit was filed to establish the absence of negligence. He relied on the case of Edwards v Arscott and Another (1991) 28 JLR 451. [16] The appellant, in his defence, in denying that the injuries of the respondent resulted from his negligence, averred that the injuries emanated from the negligence of Radcliffe Brown. In his evidence, the appellant stated that an action was brought against Lilieth Brown to recover damages for his minibus in the accident occurring on 16 January 1992 in which Mr Welch was injured and arising therefrom, he, the appellant, participated in an out of court settlement.

7 [17] Mr Dunkley sought to tender into evidence certain documents filed in suit number CL 1993/A11 Glenford Anderson v Radcliffe Brown and Lilieth Brown. These are: writ of summons, notice of proceedings to the insurance company and a memorandum of appearance. The learned judge, upholding an objection by Mr Gentles that the documents were not relevant and had no probative value to the issue before the court, refused to admit them into evidence. The question which now arises is whether the documents which the appellant endeavored to tender were admissible under rule 3.9 (4). [18] Rule 3.9(1)(a) and (b) of the CPR provides that claim forms, all judgments, and orders or directions of the court must be sealed when issued. Rule 3.9(4) allows the reception into evidence of a document bearing the court s seal without further proof. The rule reads: 3.9 (4) A document purporting to bear the court s seal shall be admissible in evidence without further proof. [19] As can be observed, rule 3.9 (1) (a) and (b) mandates only the sealing of claim forms, judgments, and orders or directions of the court, at the time of issue. These documents are admissible in evidence, on the presumption that they were sealed with the court s seal, under rule 3.9 (4). That is, their admissibility need not be subject to further proof of their authenticity, once sealed. However, they would only become admissible if they are in fact relevant to the proceedings in which they are sought to be admitted.

8 [20] The only document of those which the appellant had sought to tender into evidence as qualifying under rule 3.9 (4), would be the writ of summons. The memorandum of appearance or notice of third party proceedings, would be excluded by rule 3.9 (1) (a) and (b). Although the writ of summons is capable of qualifying under rule 3.9 (4), it would only tend to show that the appellant had commenced an action against a party or parties and the nature of his claim. It does not establish liability of any party or parties against whom the proceedings were initiated, nor does it show the outcome of the proceedings, or show that it tended to absolve the appellant. As a consequence, if admitted into evidence, it would have had no probative value whatsoever. Further, even if the memorandum of appearance and the notice of proceedings were sealed, they too would be irrelevant to the proceedings before the learned judge. [21] The case of Edwards v Arscott and Another is inapplicable. In that case the issue was the grant of leave to the respondents to amend their defence to the appellant s claim to plead by way of estoppel, a judgment in a former action, in which the appellant was not a party. This is clearly distinguishable from the issue in the present case. Grounds (b) (c) and (d) (b) The Learned Judge erred in law and in fact where after finding that the police report speaks to two cars, and she accepts that there was a car which hit the Defendant s bus against the wall

9 hitting the Claimant, she then ruled that on a balance of probability [sic] the Defendant is responsible for the injuries of the Claimant although not solely responsible, yet failed to make a finding of contributory negligence. (c) (d) The Learned Judge in Chambers erred in failing to give any or any sufficient weight to the evidence that there was another car, which hit the Defendant s bus against the wall, causing the bus to hit the Claimant. That [sic] Learned Judge failed to consider properly or at all the evidence of the Police Report, which speaks to a car hitting the Appellant s bus in the rear causing it to lose control, mount the sidewalk, and hit the Claimant. [22] The issues arising from these grounds are inter-related. It would therefore be convenient for them to be considered simultaneously. [23] The essence of Mr Dunkley s main submission was that there was a lack of evidence to show negligence on the part of the appellant. He argued that the learned judge was wrong in finding that the appellant was responsible for the respondent s injuries although he was not the sole cause of the accident. This, he submitted, is inconsistent with her having found that the appellant s bus was hit by the vehicle of a third party which pushed it against the wall hitting the respondent. [24] It was his further submission that the respondent alleged negligence on the part of the appellant in injuring him while driving his white Volkswagen

10 minibus. However, the witness Jestina Cameron testified that she saw a blue minibus going into the wall but did not see another vehicle hit the minibus nor did she see another vehicle on the scene. Neither the respondent s witnesses, Stanford Love nor Mrs Matilda Welch, saw the accident occur. He argued that the appellant established by way of viva voce evidence and documentary evidence that his collision with the respondent was as a result of the negligence of third parties who settled his claim against them. He further argued that the police report corroborated the appellant s account of the accident which the learned judge failed to consider. [25] Mr Gentles submitted that there was evidence on which the learned judge could have reached her decision. There was evidence from Stanford Love and Jestina Cameron showing that the appellant was driving at a fast rate of speed, and the weight of the police report was insufficient to displace the inference that the appellant was speeding, despite the learned judge s failure to give any or sufficient analysis with regard to the evidence, he argued. [26] It is well established by the authorities that in a claim grounded in the tort of negligence, there must be evidence to show that a duty of care is owed to a claimant by a defendant, that the defendant acted in breach of that duty and that the damage sustained by the claimant was caused by the breach of that duty. It is also well settled that where a claimant alleges that he or she has suffered damage resulting from an object or thing under the defendant s care or

11 control, a burden of proof is cast on him or her to prove his case on the balance of probabilities. [27] The general state of the law as to the proof of negligence was eminently enunciated by Lord Griffiths in Ng Chun Pui and Ng Wang King v Lee Chuen Tat and Another Privy Council Appeal No 1/1988 delivered on 24 May 1988, when he said at pages 3 and 4: The burden of proving negligence rests throughout the case on the plaintiff. Where the plaintiff has suffered injuries as a result of an accident which ought not to have happened if the defendant had taken due care, it will often be possible for the plaintiff to discharge the burden of proof by inviting the court to draw the inference that on the balance of probabilities the defendant must have failed to exercise due care, even though the plaintiff does not know in what particular respects the failure occurred it is the duty of the judge to examine all the evidence at the end of the case and decide whether on the facts he finds to have been proved and on the inferences he is prepared to draw he is satisfied that negligence has been established. [28] In establishing a duty of care there must be foreseeable damage consequent upon the defendant s negligent act. There must also be in existence, sufficient proximate relationship between the parties making it fair and reasonable to assign liability to the defendant. Lord Bridge, in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568 at 572 spoke to the test in the duty of care, sufficient to ascribe negligence, in this way:

12 In determining the existence and scope of the duty of care which one person may owe to another in the infinitely varied circumstances of human relationships there has for long been a tension between two different approaches. Traditionally the law finds the existence of the duty in different specific situations each exhibiting its own particular characteristics. In this way the law has identified a wide variety of duty situations, all falling within the ambit of the tort of negligence. At pages 573 and 574 he went on to say: What emerges, is that, in addition to the foreseeability of damage, necessary ingredients in any situation giving rise to a duty of care are that there should exist between the party owing the duty and the party to whom it is owed a relationship characterized by the law as one of proximity or neighbourhood and that the situation should be one in which the court considers it fair just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scope on the one party for the benefit of the other. [29] Liability will be affixed to negligence where the defendant s act is the sole effective cause of the claimant s injury or it is so connected to it to be a cause materially contributing to it. The negligent act as a cause of a claimant s injury may arise out of a chain of events leading to liability on the part of a defendant but the claimant must so prove. Proof that a claimant s injury was caused by the defendant s negligence raises a presumption of the defendant s liability. However, the claimant must satisfy the court that his or her injury was caused by the defendant s negligence, or that for want of care, the defendant s negligence substantially accounted for the injury.

13 [30] The question now arising is whether, on the evidence, negligence could have been ascribed to the appellant as the learned judge found. The evidence of the respondent, Mrs Welch and Mr Love failed to throw light as to how the accident occurred. Miss Cameron s narrative of the events was that, the appellant was travelling at a fast rate of speed and while passing the blue minibus on the right, the blue minibus speeded [sic] up and drove towards Three Miles. The Volkswagon swerved to the left, it appeared to be out of control as it crashed into the gate of a business place owned by Clive Grannel. After it hit the gate it slid against the side walk with the back wheels in the road and one front wheel on the side walk with the front facing Three Miles. It hit the wall where Mr Welch was walking and hit him down and ran over him. There was no collision with the other bus or any other vehicle. [31] The learned judge no doubt accepted Miss Cameron s evidence that the appellant was driving fast. There is no evidence as to the rate of speed at which he was driving. This notwithstanding, the learned judge failed to assess this witness testimony that in the appellant s attempt to overtake the blue minibus, the driver of that vehicle accelerated causing the appellant to have lost control of his vehicle, hitting the sidewalk and injuring the respondent. In which event, there could have been room for consideration as to whether the accident could have happened in the manner described by her and whether contributory negligence arose as between the owner and the driver of the blue minibus and the appellant.

14 [32] Despite the failure to evaluate Miss Cameron s evidence, what is of very great importance is the fact that the learned judge found that the appellant s bus was hit by a car, yet she failed to properly examine and assess the police report against the background of all the evidence before her, in particular that of the appellant regarding his vehicle being hit by another vehicle, causing the accident. The police report was highly material in deciding whether the appellant s negligence had been proved, as it strongly supported his evidence. [33] The learned judge erred in not properly evaluating the evidence. Her findings are flawed. She wrongly imposed liability on the appellant. It is without doubt that the respondent failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the injuries he sustained were caused by the appellant s negligence. [34] For the foregoing reasons we allowed the appeal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HAROLD JOSEPH. And EWART THOMAS. 2005: June 7 th November 21 st JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HAROLD JOSEPH. And EWART THOMAS. 2005: June 7 th November 21 st JUDGMENT ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA CLAIM NO: ANUHCV 2003/0364 BETWEEN: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HAROLD JOSEPH And EWART THOMAS Claimant Defendant Appearances: Mr George Lake for the Claimant Ms Turkessa Benjamin

More information

CASE NO. 1D09-2525. Robert B. George and Christian P. George of Liles, Gavin, Costantino, George & Dearing, P. A., Jacksonville, for Appellees.

CASE NO. 1D09-2525. Robert B. George and Christian P. George of Liles, Gavin, Costantino, George & Dearing, P. A., Jacksonville, for Appellees. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA CINDY L. SOREL, n/k/a CINDY L. EBNER, CASE NO. 1D09-2525 Appellant, v. TROY CHARLES KOONCE and COMCAST OF GREATER FLORIDA/GEORGIA, INC.,

More information

JAMAICA THE HON MR JUSTICE MORRISON JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MS JUSTICE LAWRENCE-BESWICK JA (AG) BETWEEN GODFREY THOMPSON APPELLANT

JAMAICA THE HON MR JUSTICE MORRISON JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MS JUSTICE LAWRENCE-BESWICK JA (AG) BETWEEN GODFREY THOMPSON APPELLANT [2014] JMCA Civ 37 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 41/2007 BEFORE: THE HON MR JUSTICE MORRISON JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MS JUSTICE LAWRENCE-BESWICK JA (AG) BETWEEN

More information

B U R T & D A V I E S PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS TAC COMMON LAW CLAIMS -

B U R T & D A V I E S PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS TAC COMMON LAW CLAIMS - TAC COMMON LAW CLAIMS - DEFENCES In a common law damages claim, the person who brings the claim is called the Plaintiff. The person against who the claim is brought is called the Defendant. For the Plaintiff

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 13/33469 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE...

More information

JUDGMENT. 1. In this action the plaintiff claims damages from the defendant, pursuant to the

JUDGMENT. 1. In this action the plaintiff claims damages from the defendant, pursuant to the IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (SOUTH EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 1342/03 In the matter between: RAYMOND DYSSEL Plaintiff and ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant JUDGMENT EBRAHIM J: Introduction

More information

JUDGMENT. TLM Company Limited (Appellant) v Bedasie and another (Respondent)

JUDGMENT. TLM Company Limited (Appellant) v Bedasie and another (Respondent) [2014] UKPC 25 Privy Council Appeal No 0023 of 2013 JUDGMENT TLM Company Limited (Appellant) v Bedasie and another (Respondent) From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago before Lord

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA -T-UL-L-Y-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA -T-UL-L-Y- n IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA -T-UL-L-Y- V. b e a c h...a n d. o t h e r s REASONS FOR JUDGMENT t u l l y v. BEACH AND OTHERS - JUDGMENT (o r a l ). JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY DIXON C.J. COMM:

More information

IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG LENTIKILE DAVID PHETE JUDGMENT. [1] This is an action instituted by Lentikile David Phete, a major male

IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG LENTIKILE DAVID PHETE JUDGMENT. [1] This is an action instituted by Lentikile David Phete, a major male SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG In the matter

More information

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 03-CV-1445. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CA-3748-02)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 03-CV-1445. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CA-3748-02) Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections

More information

DRAFT MOTOR TRAFFIC (THIRD- PARTY INSURANCE) (COST RECOVERY) (JERSEY) REGULATIONS

DRAFT MOTOR TRAFFIC (THIRD- PARTY INSURANCE) (COST RECOVERY) (JERSEY) REGULATIONS STATES OF JERSEY r DRAFT MOTOR TRAFFIC (THIRD- PARTY INSURANCE) (COST RECOVERY) (JERSEY) REGULATIONS 201- Lodged au Greffe on 13th December 2012 by the Minister for Health and Social Services STATES GREFFE

More information

CASE COMMENT. by Craig Gillespie and Bottom Line Research

CASE COMMENT. by Craig Gillespie and Bottom Line Research CASE COMMENT by Craig Gillespie and Bottom Line Research On June 29, 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada released Clements v. Clements, [2012] 7 W.W.R. 217, 2012 SCC 32, its latest in a series of judgements

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA) 1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF

More information

Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Resolution) Act 2007 No 95

Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Resolution) Act 2007 No 95 New South Wales Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 No 41 2 4 Amendment of other

More information

PLEASE NOTE. For more information concerning the history of this Act, please see the Table of Public Acts.

PLEASE NOTE. For more information concerning the history of this Act, please see the Table of Public Acts. PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 19, 2009. It is intended for information and reference purposes only.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT Filed 2/11/15 Estate of Thomson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

Legal Watch: Personal Injury

Legal Watch: Personal Injury Legal Watch: Personal Injury 2nd July 2014 Issue: 025 Part 36 As can be seen from the case of Supergroup Plc v Justenough Software Corp Inc [Lawtel 30/06/2014] Part 36 is still the subject of varying interpretations.

More information

JAMAICA. THE HON MR JUSTICE PANTON P THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MRS JUSTICE McDONALD-BISHOP JA (Ag)

JAMAICA. THE HON MR JUSTICE PANTON P THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MRS JUSTICE McDONALD-BISHOP JA (Ag) [2015] JMCA Civ 18 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 98/2013 BEFORE: THE HON MR JUSTICE PANTON P THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MRS JUSTICE McDONALD-BISHOP JA (Ag) BETWEEN

More information

No. 1-10-0602 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

No. 1-10-0602 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT SECOND DIVISION May 31, 2011 No. 1-10-0602 Notice: This order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and EDMUND BICAR. 2010: March 25; May 3.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and EDMUND BICAR. 2010: March 25; May 3. SAINT LUCIA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HCVAP 2008/014 BETWEEN: EASTERN CARIBBEAN INSURANCE LTD. Appellant and EDMUND BICAR Before: The Hon. Mde. Janice George-Creque The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste The Hon.

More information

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-348 ************

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-348 ************ STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-348 LESTER BLACKMAN, ET AL. VERSUS BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY ************ APPEAL FROM THE CITY COURT OF ALEXANDRIA, PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 103,325,

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 LUZ RIVERA AND ABRIANNA RIVERA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RONALD MANZI Appellee No. 948 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Order

More information

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. HCVAP 2012/026 IN THE MATTER of an Interlocutory Appeal and

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. HCVAP 2012/026 IN THE MATTER of an Interlocutory Appeal and THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SAINT LUCIA HCVAP 2012/026 IN THE MATTER of an Interlocutory Appeal and IN THE MATTER of Part 62.10 of the Civil Procedure Rules BETWEEN: CHRISTIAN

More information

Civil Suits: The Process

Civil Suits: The Process Jurisdictional Limits The justice courts have exclusive jurisdiction or the authority to hear all civil actions when the amount involved, exclusive of interest, costs and awarded attorney fees when authorized

More information

DO NOT PASS GO DO NOT COLLECT $200 PERSONAL INJURY PLEADINGS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

DO NOT PASS GO DO NOT COLLECT $200 PERSONAL INJURY PLEADINGS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS DO NOT PASS GO DO NOT COLLECT $200 PERSONAL INJURY PLEADINGS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS BY: MR NADIM BASHIR NEW PARK COURT CHAMBERS LEEDS LSI 2SJ TEL: 0113 243 3277 1 1. Introduction If there was any doubt

More information

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS Frequently Asked Questions 1. Can I make a claim? If you have been injured because of the fault of someone else, you can claim financial compensation through the courts. The dependants

More information

LIMITATION UPDATE. 1. Recently, the Courts have been looking at three areas of limitation law and

LIMITATION UPDATE. 1. Recently, the Courts have been looking at three areas of limitation law and LIMITATION UPDATE 1. Recently, the Courts have been looking at three areas of limitation law and practice. One is when it is permissible to introduce a new claim in pending proceedings after the limitation

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 19, 2011 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 19, 2011 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 19, 2011 Session JOSHUA N. LEE, v. LYONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County No. 2009-0263-11 Hon. Richard

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ESTATE OF TIMOTHY HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 23, 2007 v No. 259987 Oakland Circuit Court CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 2000-024949-CZ and Defendant/Cross-Defendant-

More information

RE: 1562860 ONTARIO LTD. c.o.b. as SHOELESS JOE S Plaintiff v. INSURANCE PORTFOLIO INC. and CHRISTOPHER CONIGLIO. Defendants v.

RE: 1562860 ONTARIO LTD. c.o.b. as SHOELESS JOE S Plaintiff v. INSURANCE PORTFOLIO INC. and CHRISTOPHER CONIGLIO. Defendants v. COURT FILE NO.: 4022A/07 (Milton) DATE: 20090401 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: 1562860 ONTARIO LTD. c.o.b. as SHOELESS JOE S Plaintiff v. INSURANCE PORTFOLIO INC. and CHRISTOPHER CONIGLIO Defendants

More information

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the ****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

More information

MOTOR INSURER S BUREAU OF IRELAND

MOTOR INSURER S BUREAU OF IRELAND MOTOR INSURER S BUREAU OF IRELAND COMPENSATION OF UNINSURED ROAD ACCIDENT VICTIMS Agreement dated 29th January 2009 between the Minister for Transport and the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) AGREEMENT

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBIA M. GENE FIELDER.PLAINTIFF. ANSUMANA MARENAH (Trading as Julakay Fast Food Restaurant)..

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBIA M. GENE FIELDER.PLAINTIFF. ANSUMANA MARENAH (Trading as Julakay Fast Food Restaurant).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBIA CIVIL SUIT NO: HC/175/09/CO/058/D2 BETWEEN: M. GENE FIELDER.PLAINTIFF AND ANSUMANA MARENAH (Trading as Julakay Fast Food Restaurant)..DEFENDANT Wednesday 24 th November

More information

Plaintiff moves the Court for judgment in the amount of. The question before the Court is whether the

Plaintiff moves the Court for judgment in the amount of. The question before the Court is whether the VIRGINIA : IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND PARTICIA A. MCDUFFIE, Plaintiff, PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.: CL06-5494-1 and Defendant, PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CA-01200-COA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CA-01200-COA IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CA-01200-COA HARVEY HALEY APPELLANT v. ANNA JURGENSON, AGELESS REMEDIES FRANCHISING, LLC, AGELESS REMEDIES MEDICAL SKINCARE AND APOTHECARY AND

More information

Pg. 01 French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP

Pg. 01 French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP Contents French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP 1 Excelerate Technology Limited v Cumberbatch and Others 3 Downing v Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 5 Yeo v Times Newspapers Limited

More information

Introduction Page to the Appellant s PDF Factum:

Introduction Page to the Appellant s PDF Factum: Introduction Page to the Appellant s PDF Factum: Note: When you bind your factum, all pages (except for the cover and index) starting with your chronology, should always be on the left-hand side. The righthand

More information

Claim notification form (RTA1) Low value personal injury claims in road traffic accidents ( 1,000-25,000)

Claim notification form (RTA1) Low value personal injury claims in road traffic accidents ( 1,000-25,000) Date sent / / Claim notification form (RTA1) Low value personal injury claims in road traffic accidents ( 1,000-25,000) Before filling in this form you are encouraged to seek independent legal advice.

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Cleveland v. Tisdale, 2015-Ohio-1017.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101376 CITY OF CLEVELAND PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. VENIS

More information

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the ****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA IN CIVIL DIVISION CLAIM NO 1999 CL W- 035

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA IN CIVIL DIVISION CLAIM NO 1999 CL W- 035 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA IN CIVIL DIVISION CLAIM NO 1999 CL W- 035 IN CHAMBERS BETWEEN HAZEL WRIGHT CLAIMANT (Near relation of Robert Phillips, deceased) AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEFENDANT

More information

Executive summary and overview of the national report for Denmark

Executive summary and overview of the national report for Denmark Executive summary and overview of the national report for Denmark Section I Summary of findings There is no special legislation concerning damages for breach of EC or national competition law in Denmark,

More information

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT Province of Alberta MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter M-22 Current as of April 1, 2015 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s

More information

NC General Statutes - Chapter 143 Article 31 1

NC General Statutes - Chapter 143 Article 31 1 Article 31. Tort Claims against State Departments and Agencies. 143-291. Industrial Commission constituted a court to hear and determine claims; damages; liability insurance in lieu of obligation under

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Webber v. Boutilier, 2016 NSSC 5

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Webber v. Boutilier, 2016 NSSC 5 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Webber v. Boutilier, 2016 NSSC 5 Date: 20160105 Docket: Hfx No. 241129 Registry: Halifax Between: Cindy June Webber v. Plaintiff Arthur Boutilier and Dartmouth Central

More information

Report on Civil Cases in the District Court of Western Australia 2008/09 to 2012/13

Report on Civil Cases in the District Court of Western Australia 2008/09 to 2012/13 Report on Civil Cases in the District Court of Western Australia 28/9 to 212/13 Table of Contents Civil Case Lodgments 1 Civil Writ (CIV) Register Lodgments 2 Originating Summons (CIVO) Register Lodgments

More information

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 97-C-0416 PAUL B. SIMMS JASON BUTLER, ET AL.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 97-C-0416 PAUL B. SIMMS JASON BUTLER, ET AL. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 97-C-0416 PAUL B. SIMMS V. JASON BUTLER, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ORLEANS MARCUS, Justice * Newton Moore, an employee

More information

How To Get A Court To Dismiss A Spoliation Of Evidence Claim In Illinois

How To Get A Court To Dismiss A Spoliation Of Evidence Claim In Illinois No. 2-14-1168 Order filed October 15, 2015 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule

More information

Province of Alberta LIMITATIONS ACT. Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter L-12. Current as of December 17, 2014. Office Consolidation

Province of Alberta LIMITATIONS ACT. Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter L-12. Current as of December 17, 2014. Office Consolidation Province of Alberta LIMITATIONS ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Current as of December 17, 2014 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer 5 th Floor, Park Plaza

More information

uninsured/underinsured motorist ( UM or UIM respectively) coverage of $100,000 per claimant. Under the Atkinson policy,

uninsured/underinsured motorist ( UM or UIM respectively) coverage of $100,000 per claimant. Under the Atkinson policy, PRESENT: All the Justices LENNA JO DYER OPINION BY v. Record No. 031532 JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE APRIL 23, 2004 DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Herbert C. Gill,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2004-CA-01391-COA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2004-CA-01391-COA IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2004-CA-01391-COA PEGGY HUDSON FISHER APPELLANT v. WILLIAM DEER, GANNETT MS CORP. AND GANNETT RIVER STATES PUBLISHING CORP. D/B/A THE HATTIESBURG

More information

Murrell v Healy [2001] ADR.L.R. 04/05

Murrell v Healy [2001] ADR.L.R. 04/05 CA on appeal from Brighton CC (HHJ Coates) before Waller LJ; Dyson LJ. 5 th April 2001. JUDGMENT : LORD JUSTICE WALLER : 1. This is an appeal from Her Honour Judge Coates who assessed damages in the following

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2008-CA-00966-COA DEANNA J. ROWAN AND GARY ROWAN

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2008-CA-00966-COA DEANNA J. ROWAN AND GARY ROWAN IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2008-CA-00966-COA DEANNA J. ROWAN AND GARY ROWAN APPELLANTS v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. AND PAT PECK NISSAN, INC. APPELLEES DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/01/2008

More information

DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PRELIMINARY ISSUE

DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PRELIMINARY ISSUE IN THE MATTER of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, as amended, section 275; AND IN THE MATTER of the Arbitration Act, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER of an arbitration; B E T W E E N : JEVCO

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JAMES D. FOWLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 08-cv-2785 ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Judge Robert M. Dow,

More information

I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res

More information

VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION

VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION CHAPTER 585 An Act to amend and reenact 38.2-2206 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 7 of Chapter 3 of Title 8.01 a

More information

Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Central Scotland Police

Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Central Scotland Police Case reference: PCCS/00410/12/CSP June 2013 Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Central Scotland Police under section 35(1) of the Police Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act

More information

Case Survey: Villines v. North Arkansas Regional Medical Center 2011 Ark. App. 506 UALR Law Review Published Online Only

Case Survey: Villines v. North Arkansas Regional Medical Center 2011 Ark. App. 506 UALR Law Review Published Online Only THE COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS HOLDS THAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS IMPROPER WHEN QUESTIONS OF MATERIAL FACT ARRISE IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS In Villines v. North Arkansas Regional Medical Center, 1 the

More information

Chapter 4 Crimes (Review)

Chapter 4 Crimes (Review) Chapter 4 Crimes (Review) On a separate sheet of paper, write down the answer to the following Q s; if you do not know the answer, write down the Q. 1. What is a crime? 2. There are elements of a crime.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL Decided on: 23rd February, 2015 MAC.APP. 56/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL Decided on: 23rd February, 2015 MAC.APP. 56/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL Decided on: 23rd February, 2015 MAC.APP. 56/2015 NEETU THAKUR & ORS Through: Mr. Nitin Yadav, Adv.... Appellants versus

More information

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 14-1041 **********

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 14-1041 ********** STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 14-1041 LINDA G. LEBLANC VERSUS BRODY M. BOUZON, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 2013-1355

More information

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 HOUSE DRH11149-TG-5 (12/01) Short Title: Tort Reform Act of 2011. (Public)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 HOUSE DRH11149-TG-5 (12/01) Short Title: Tort Reform Act of 2011. (Public) H GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION HOUSE DRH-TG- (/01) D Short Title: Tort Reform Act of. (Public) Sponsors: Referred to: Representatives Blust and Daughtry (Primary Sponsors). 1 A BILL TO BE

More information

How To Pay Costs Of A Court Case In The Uk

How To Pay Costs Of A Court Case In The Uk SCHEDULE OF COSTS PRECEDENTS PRECEDENT C IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1999 - B - 9999 QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION BRIGHTON DISTRICT REGISTRY BETWEEN AB ~ and ~ CD Claimant Defendant CLAIMANT'S BILL OF COSTS

More information

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion)

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) CITY OF LINCOLN V. DIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION

More information

FIRE ON THE ICE: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE REGARDING CAUSATION

FIRE ON THE ICE: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE REGARDING CAUSATION Aaron L. Sherriff FIRE ON THE ICE: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE REGARDING CAUSATION 2 Aaron L. Sherriff TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE CGL POLICY... 3 II. NEGLIGENCE... 3 III. MR. HANKE... 4

More information

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PROBATE LAW WRONGFUL DEATH CASES

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PROBATE LAW WRONGFUL DEATH CASES RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PROBATE LAW WRONGFUL DEATH CASES by Sidney C. Summey WHITE, ARNOLD & DOWD, PC Suite 500 2025 Third Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 205-715-2690 ssummey@whitearnolddowd.com Alabama

More information

FIXED COSTS PART 45. Contents of this Part

FIXED COSTS PART 45. Contents of this Part FIXED COSTS PART 45 PART 45 Contents of this Part I FIXED COSTS Rule 45.1 Scope of this Section Rule 45.2 Amount of fixed commencement costs in a claim for the recovery of money or goods Rule 45.2A Amount

More information

Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SANDRA H. DEYA and EDWIN DEYA, individually and as next friends and natural

More information

Province of Alberta DEFAMATION ACT. Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter D-7. Current as of November 1, 2010. Office Consolidation

Province of Alberta DEFAMATION ACT. Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter D-7. Current as of November 1, 2010. Office Consolidation Province of Alberta DEFAMATION ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Current as of November 1, 2010 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer 7 th Floor, Park Plaza

More information

No. 1-11-1354 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

No. 1-11-1354 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2012 IL App (1st 1111354-U SIXTH DIVISION April 20, 2012 No. 1-11-1354 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Bruce A. HESLIP 89-267 790 S.W.2d 152 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered May 21, 1990

NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Bruce A. HESLIP 89-267 790 S.W.2d 152 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered May 21, 1990 310 Co. v. HESLIP [302 NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Bruce A. HESLIP 89-267 790 S.W.2d 152 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered May 21, 1990 ESTOPPEL EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL MAY BE

More information

MIB Uninsured Agreement

MIB Uninsured Agreement MIB Uninsured Agreement THIS AGREEMENT is made on the 3rd July 2015 between the SECRETARY OF STATE ( the Secretary of State ) and the MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU ( MIB ), whose registered office is for the time

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Toor v. Harding, 2013 BCSC 1202 Amrit Toor and Intech Engineering Ltd. Date: 20130705 Docket: S125365 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiffs Thomas

More information

How To Process A Small Claims Case In Anarizonia

How To Process A Small Claims Case In Anarizonia What is a small claims division? Every justice court in Arizona has a small claims division to provide an inexpensive and speedy method for resolving most civil disputes that do not exceed $2,500. All

More information

Homeowner's vs Car Insurer > Subrogation Re: Ontario Car Accident

Homeowner's vs Car Insurer > Subrogation Re: Ontario Car Accident Friday, April 25, 2014 Page 1 Homeowner's vs Car Insurer > Subrogation Re: Ontario Car Accident The Issue: With homeowner's insurance, if you suffer property damage due to the negligence / fault of someone

More information

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia SECOND DIVISION JOHNSON, P.J., ELLINGTON and MIKELL, JJ. NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BY THE COURT. September 22, 2009 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A09A1222. WILLIAMS

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-14-00894-CV

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-14-00894-CV Reversed and Remanded and Opinion Filed July 28, 2015 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00894-CV TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION, Appellant V. JOSEPH MCRAE,

More information

South Australia LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY) ACT 2001

South Australia LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY) ACT 2001 South Australia LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY) ACT 2001 An Act to reform the law relating to contributory negligence and the apportionment of liability; to amend the

More information

Chapter 445. Indigent Persons Injured in Motor Vehicle Accidents 2013 EDITION. Related Laws Page 659 (2013 Edition)

Chapter 445. Indigent Persons Injured in Motor Vehicle Accidents 2013 EDITION. Related Laws Page 659 (2013 Edition) Chapter 445 2013 EDITION Indigent Persons Injured in Motor Vehicle Accidents 445.010 Definitions 445.020 Determination of indigency 445.030 Motor Vehicle Accident Fund; source; uses 445.050 Jurisdiction;

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2014-IA-00913-SCT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2014-IA-00913-SCT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY v. NO. 2014-IA-00913-SCT TIFFANY DUKES, ROBERT LEE HUDSON, TAWANDA L. WHITE, AS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF JEFFREY L. PIGGS, A MINOR CHILD DATE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 10, 2006 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 10, 2006 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 10, 2006 Session SACHICO COPE v. JOHN DOE, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Coffee County No. 2787 John W. Rollins, Judge No. M2005-0206-COA-R-CV

More information

Prepared by: Hon. Duncan W. Keir, Judge U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland. and. Richard L. Wasserman, Esq.

Prepared by: Hon. Duncan W. Keir, Judge U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland. and. Richard L. Wasserman, Esq. Memorandum Summarizing Procedures With Respect To Removal Of Bankruptcy-Related State Court Actions To The United States District Court And United States Bankruptcy Court In Maryland Prepared by: Hon.

More information

How To Prove Guilt In A Court Case In Texas

How To Prove Guilt In A Court Case In Texas CAUSE NO. 02-01125-J CHARLES DURHAM IN THE 191ST DISTRICT COURT VS. LARVAN PERAILTA DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO RECOVER EXPENSES OF PROOF TO THE HONORABLE COURT: Comes Now, Charles Durham,

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: JANUARY 22, 2010; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-000566-MR TOM COX APPELLANT APPEAL FROM LAUREL CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JOHN KNOX MILLS,

More information

How To Settle A Car Accident In The Uk

How To Settle A Car Accident In The Uk PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE This booklet has been produced by D.J. Synnott Solicitors to give our clients an understanding of the personal injury compensation

More information

LIMITATION OF CERTAIN ACTIONS ACT

LIMITATION OF CERTAIN ACTIONS ACT LIMITATION OF CERTAIN ACTIONS ACT CHAPTER 7:09 Act 36 of 1997 Amended by 2 of 2000 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1 18.. L.R.O. 2 Chap. 7:09 Limitation of Certain Actions

More information

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U Order

More information

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1015/94

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1015/94 WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1015/94 This appeal was heard by conference call between Toronto and Thunder Bay on December 1, 1994, by a Tribunal Panel consisting of: J.P. Moore:

More information

OREGON LAWS 2015 Chap. 5 CHAPTER 5

OREGON LAWS 2015 Chap. 5 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 5 AN ACT SB 411 Relating to personal injury protection benefits; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 742.500, 742.502, 742.504, 742.506, 742.524 and 742.544. Be It Enacted by the People of

More information

No. 62 February 13, 2013 271 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON. Scott HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

No. 62 February 13, 2013 271 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON. Scott HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 62 February 13, 2013 271 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Scott HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, Defendant-Respondent. Multnomah County Circuit Court 100913654; A149379

More information

RULE 49 OFFER TO SETTLE

RULE 49 OFFER TO SETTLE RULE 49 OFFER TO SETTLE DEFINITIONS 49.01 In Rules 49.02 to 49.14, (a) "defendant" includes a respondent; (b) "plaintiff" includes an applicant. WHERE AVAILABLE 49.02 (1) A party to a proceeding may serve

More information

APPENDIX C. Pre-action Protocol for Non-Injury Motor Accident Cases

APPENDIX C. Pre-action Protocol for Non-Injury Motor Accident Cases APPENDIX C Annex B 1. Application Pre-action Protocol for Non-Injury Motor Accident Cases 1.1 The object of this protocol is to describe reasonable conduct for non-injury motor accident claims. In exercising

More information

2009 BCCA 78 Pearlman v. American Commerce Insurance Company

2009 BCCA 78 Pearlman v. American Commerce Insurance Company Page 1 of 8 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Pearlman v. American Commerce Insurance Company, 2009 BCCA 78 David Pearlman American Commerce Insurance Company, and Betsy Morrisette

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 98-C-1403 WILLIS THOMAS Versus TOWN OF ARNAUDVILLE PER CURIAM* This is a workers compensation case. The workers compensation judge found plaintiff failed to establish a work-related

More information

Claim notification form

Claim notification form Before filling in this form you are encouraged to seek independent legal advice. Date sent / / Claim notification form Low value personal injury claims in road traffic accidents( 1,000-10,000) Are you

More information

Number 31 of 2004 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. Preliminary and General

Number 31 of 2004 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. Preliminary and General Number 31 of 2004 CIVIL LIABILITY AND COURTS ACT 2004 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART 1 Preliminary and General Section 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Interpretation. 3. Orders and regulations. 4. Service

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR THURSTON COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR THURSTON COUNTY THE HONORABLE CAROL MURPHY 1 1 1 1 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR THURSTON COUNTY TARVA LEE, ) ) No: --00- Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF ) CONTRACT, BAD FAITH, FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY

More information

IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 1 NOT REPORTABLE IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 46854/2009 DATE: 29/04/2011 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE REPORTABLE: YES/NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO

More information